Help on the spiritual path

[snowymountains]

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I think nearly everyone has unconscious emotional stuff that is "unwanted" (to put it mildly), stuff that could potentially surface during meditation.  In a way, this surfacing process is the point; it's how meditation works.  Once the gunk is cleared out we're likely to feel better, but, but, but...while the gunk is being cleared out we're likely to feel worse.  Some people need to go slower than others.  Some people need to go not at all.  And for some, it's full speed ahead.  It's a very individual thing and I think the key is to honor where we are. 

 

Agreed, and it's more than surfacing things.

They also need to be processed, which imo is the actual work that needs to be done.

After something has been processed, one typically also progresses in their meditation and of course new goodies come out for new processing.

This process is done over and over and over.

 

I can't recall the exact words of Jung but they were along the lines of enlightenment is not about seeing lights but seeing in the dark.

By dark he refereed to all the layers of our unconscious which rule us, unless we become aware of them/see them.

[Apech]

56 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

If they are unwanted , one releases them .  from the depths , then they 'rise up' to the conscious mind .

 

if they are unwanted, one releases them and watches them continue to 'rise' , up and to whatever source one gives one's life experience to *  . If they are wanted , we hold on to them  and dont offer them up ,  we hold them within our consciousness and have them effect and interact with  that .  - but when things dont 'flow' they become 'stagnant '  .

 

* To experience the fullness of   ' life's  experiences'  both  'good ' or 'bad'  are required by 'spirit'.

 

Ok but .... this is to me slightly theoretical.  

 

'Want' in itself suggests lack.  I want something because I don't have it.  If the emotions are unwanted then why did we hold on to them anyway?  They are stored up certainly and mostly they are unassimilated.  They are energy that we cannot digest.  Non food - which can become food if prepared in the right way.  

 

In a funny way - a deep way - we do want those emotions.  They affirm our importance.  Our justified anger for instance.  Doesn't that mean we want them in the first place but later maybe we regret wanting and holding them?

 

Is it bad to feel anger?  Say we sit for five minutes and start sobbing.  Is that bad or good?  Is it what we intended anyway? why did we start sitting in the first place?  It's all very strange and submarine.

 

 

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ok but .... this is to me slightly theoretical.  

 

'Want' in itself suggests lack.  I want something because I don't have it.  If the emotions are unwanted then why did we hold on to them anyway?  They are stored up certainly and mostly they are unassimilated.  They are energy that we cannot digest.  Non food - which can become food if prepared in the right way.  

 

In a funny way - a deep way - we do want those emotions.  They affirm our importance.  Our justified anger for instance.  Doesn't that mean we want them in the first place but later maybe we regret wanting and holding them?

 

Is it bad to feel anger?  Say we sit for five minutes and start sobbing.  Is that bad or good?  Is it what we intended anyway? why did we start sitting in the first place?  It's all very strange and submarine.

 

 

 

The Buddha defined "bad" as that which causes suffering. 

 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

The Buddha defined "bad" as that which causes suffering. 

 

 

Oh so so soooooooo Buddhist

 

New thread 

 

Edited February 8 by Apech

[Maddie]

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Oh so so soooooooo Buddhist

 

New thread 

 

 

Hey I'm Buddhist what can I say lol

[Nungali]

46 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I think nearly everyone has unconscious emotional stuff that is "unwanted" (to put it mildly), stuff that could potentially surface during meditation.  In a way, this surfacing process is the point; it's how meditation works.  Once the gunk is cleared out we're likely to feel better, but, but, but...while the gunk is being cleared out we're likely to feel worse.  Some people need to go slower than others.  Some people need to go not at all.  And for some, it's full speed ahead.  It's a very individual thing and I think the key is to honor where we are. 

 

 

Love this !   Thank you .    

 

 

 

 A few years back I had a physical problem where I could not work for a while and  could not get on sickness payments , so I had to be on unemployment payments .   To 'get us back to work ' one had to do a course to receive payments  - they where crap BS and I think designed to be so stupid  and crappy and useless , people would run away and get a job instead  -   'employment encouragement ' 

 

The system was ruthless in that it lumped all these different people together ; kids out of school ,  mid  age range employed people wanting a job or avoiding one  - people like me ... even an old ex- farmer , totally straight and old school that was due for an aged pension in 12 months ....  give him leeway ? Nope ! Gonna force him through 6 months of this to get a "New Start", that was the name of the course , to flog his old body for  one last half a year before he was allowed to retire .

 

In the go round 'getting to know each other ' he quietly told his story , mentioning his wife died 2 years ago , and now he was managing things by himself .   Now this is pretty much an 'alternative town '  and its full of such therapies, ideas and people ... many of them , especially the community I live on , seem absolutely plagued by 'past trauma ' they need to 'process' just about every thing and  seem addicted to the actual process ... process . Unfortunately with out any results ... they keep doing the same stuff over and over again , but seem to love processing it  .

 

So in the course , this woman then pops up   ( and gets supported by others )  and says to old  farmer ;

" Have you processed that , your wife's death and now being alone ? "

 

Farmer :  "  Processed ? "

 

" Yes , looked into it , felt it ,  realised its significance and how you should process your feelings, what you DO feel  , 'witness' them ,  then release them ."

 

Farmer :  " Well,  it was significant and it felt bad ... and lonely , at times I get sad ... but I just put that in the back of my mind and get on with it . "

 

Woman ;  " Oh no , you cant do that, you have to ... blah  blah blah .... "   - Farmer looking confused .

 

I had to interrupt ;   " Leave him alone ... he is old school . Thats not how they do things ... they DO just get on with , amidst all sorts of adversity  ... people had families to raise , fields to plough , bridges  and roads to construct ,  towns to build , with occasional forays off to war ,  and cow's to milk  ... actually, probably right now , instead of being forced to sit in a room  and  having to hear  advice and judgement from others who seem to not have a clue about the immense contribution they made , instead of  running around constantly looking for the next new therapy  to NOT cure themselves of their malaise or depression   and  .....   "

 

- I  looks around and every one is glaring at   me .....  Oooops ,     "  I mean ...  thank you ... come again ."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by Nungali

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Hey I'm Buddhist what can I say lol

you could say Om

[snowymountains]

40 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ok but .... this is to me slightly theoretical.  

 

'Want' in itself suggests lack.  I want something because I don't have it.  If the emotions are unwanted then why did we hold on to them anyway?  They are stored up certainly and mostly they are unassimilated.  They are energy that we cannot digest.  Non food - which can become food if prepared in the right way.  

 

In a funny way - a deep way - we do want those emotions.  They affirm our importance.  Our justified anger for instance.  Doesn't that mean we want them in the first place but later maybe we regret wanting and holding them?

 

Is it bad to feel anger?  Say we sit for five minutes and start sobbing.  Is that bad or good?  Is it what we intended anyway? why did we start sitting in the first place?  It's all very strange and submarine.

 

 

 

It's a lot of things there.

 

On emotions, 

Yes we do want emotions, emotions help us prioritize what's important to us.

 

On suppression, we can't selectively suppress this or that emotion, we end up suppressing them all.

Also we shouldn't suppress them, they're very important to understand, and if we do suppress, they'll resurface anyhow.

 

On why we hold on to them, there's no simple answer, it may take a couple of years of therapy to find out.

 

On what the Buddha said on emotions, the Buddha didn't say we shouldn't have emotions, nor to suppress them of course, he said two things ( well he said a lot , just two of the most important ones )

• emotions rise and fall, they're impermanent, we should not identify with an emotion.
• We should not entangle the mind with negative emotions by eg judging, so that we do not reinforce them ( he didn't say to suppress them ).

As to why they rise and fall, one can practice insight meditation with interdependent arising and see.

Though tbh in 2024, therapy is the better option for this goal.

 

So if you feel anger, acknowledge it but don't pour gasoline in the fire by entangling the mind with it, don't identify with the anger/you are not the anger. Also try to see deeply into what triggered the anger.

Edited February 8 by snowymountains

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

On why we hold on to them, there's no simple answer, it may take a couple of years of therapy to find out.

 

We hold on to them because we cling.

We cling because we crave.

We crave because we like.

We like because we sense.

We sense because we have a body.

We have a body because we were born. 

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

We hold on to them because we cling.

We cling because we crave.

We crave because we like.

We like because we sense.

We sense because we have a body.

We have a body because we were born. 

 

On this I'll have to respectfully disagree with both you and the Buddha 😁, it's not the only reason.

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

On this I'll have to respectfully disagree with both you and the Buddha 😁, it's not the only reason.

 

What is your theory then?

[Nungali]

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ok but .... this is to me slightly theoretical.  

 

Okay .  To me its practical and , at least, a daily consideration .  Especially when the pain is bad , it helps to be able to handle it , instead of rolling around moaning , people seem to get concerned when I do that .

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

'Want' in itself suggests lack.  I want something because I don't have it. 

 

Sure, but I was talking about 'not want '   , what we do not want can be something we got by previous wanting  ... or not at all, it might have been instilled in us , or we 'picked it up '  some other way , then, in the first place , you dint want it becasue you did not have it .

 

But anyway ....

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

If the emotions are unwanted then why did we hold on to them anyway? 

 

Which 'we' are we talking about here ?   The collective 'lower drives'   that want to hold on to them, or the higher ones that can   see that some of them need to be modified  ?  Emotions can be a tool to drive mindful actions.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

They are stored up certainly and mostly they are unassimilated.  They are energy that we cannot digest.  Non food - which can become food if prepared in the right way.  

 

Exactly . 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

In a funny way - a deep way - we do want those emotions.  They affirm our importance.  Our justified anger for instance.  Doesn't that mean we want them in the first place but later maybe we regret wanting and holding them?

 

Perhaps for some and me, at times .  But when I am 'mindful' and operating in response mode (as opposed to reactive mode ) they can be a great tool .   My anger might drive me beyond physical capability , when defending the innocent  , old, young, infirm , etc .   My empathic sorrow  might help me to better council a friend in need .  Best not to get the wires crossed on those . ... friend in need might be reactive and say the 'wrong thing' , then, for me, an anger reaction would be my emotions hindering me .

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Is it bad to feel anger? 

 

I would say not, but I would say it would be bad to then not do something  with it  - anger can create  ' readiness to do something about it "  it which can cause a release of adrenaline into the system   to fuel  such 'extra physical needs ' if it isnt used up, it stagnates and changes into substances that can cause he body to react with stress symptoms   -  15  mins on the bag   ;

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

Say we sit for five minutes and start sobbing.  Is that bad or good? 

 

IMO that depends on what happens next .

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

Is it what we intended anyway?

 

It is ... if that is what we intended .   I suppose one could do it to 'see what happens '  .... as long as one has a strategy  to apply to 'anything that can happen ' .

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

why did we start sitting in the first place? 

 

Hopefully , we had an intention  that would satisfy that 'why ' .

 

But maybe I am not reading YOUR intention here correctly ? 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

It's all very strange and submarine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air
And deep beneath the rolling waves in labyrinths of coral caves
The echo of a distant time comes willowing across the sand
And everything is green and submarine

And no one showed us to the land
And no one knows the wheres or whys
But something stirs and something tries
And starts to climb towards the light

 

 

- Pink Floyd

 

[snowymountains]

Re reasons for emotional responses eg may not be related to clinging but instead eg may be an automatic response which exists due some past event.

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

What is your theory then?

It's not mine 😁, see a comment I made just before.

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

It's not mine 😁, see a comment I made just before.

 

I did, I'm confused.

[snowymountains]

14 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I did, I'm confused.

 

Eg someone becoming fearful when they hear a sound may be due to a traumatic past memory - maybe during the traumatic memory clinging did play a role but today fear will be triggered by that sound even without that clinging being present.

 

So there you have it, an emotion resurfacing without any clinging.

 

( If I recall correctly, the abhidhamma does touch upon a similar process, but even so, we're not sure who wrote the abhidhamma )

 

Also, to disagree further with the Buddha, if we never clinged, we'd simply be dead, babies and toddlers need to cling in order to survive.

[Maddie]

21 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Eg someone becoming fearful when they hear a sound may be due to a traumatic past memory - maybe during the traumatic memory clinging did play a role but today fear will be triggered by that sound even without that clinging being present.

 

So there you have it, an emotion resurfacing without any clinging.

 

According to the technical definition of what the Buddha taught being triggered in a PTSD situation is clinging. The mind is clinging to those past events, and it is that conditioning which gets triggered.

 

22 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Also, to disagree further with the Buddha, if we never clinged, we'd simply be dead, babies and toddlers need to cling in order to survive.

 

Granted the word clinging and craving is often misunderstood in the west, but it is more nuanced than most westerners realize. A better way to put it is unskillful clinging and craving is what causes suffering. Obviously desiring to end suffering in a skillful way is a good or noble desire. 

[snowymountains]

10 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

According to the technical definition of what the Buddha taught being triggered in a PTSD situation is clinging. The mind is clinging to those past events, and it is that conditioning which gets triggered.

 

 

Granted the word clinging and craving is often misunderstood in the west, but it is more nuanced than most westerners realize. A better way to put it is unskillful clinging and craving is what causes suffering. Obviously desiring to end suffering in a skillful way is a good or noble desire. 

 

It's not as straightforward as clinging to the events, an automatic reaction has been formed. Therapeutic treatment does include going back to the events but the automatic reaction acts in a sense autonomously.

 

It also is not restricted to PTSD, every single person has automatic reactions.

We also cannot discover all automatic reactions on our own eg through insight meditation, some we "need" to be told by other people.

 

It's a bit of a slippery slope to add more words to it, ie restrict clinging to unskilful clinging and so on, in order to fit a case into the main narrative.

But ultimately what the Buddha said is not the complete picture.

 

What he taught is great, but we also shouldn't ignore what was discovered in the 2400 years after he passed.

 

Would the Buddha today teach identically to 400BC or, like he did in his era, he would make good use all known science, medicine and philosophy?

 

Should we eg fit today's periodic table to the 4/5 elements theory, I doubt today he'd use the 4 elements mental model as he did in 400BC.

 

Similarly we should not fit more refined and tested theories for psychology to the 400BC model, which though very impressive is not a complete picture. Today we are closer to a complete picture than then, in 100 years we'll be even closer etc.

Edited February 9 by snowymountains

[blue eyed snake]

14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I think nearly everyone has unconscious emotional stuff that is "unwanted" (to put it mildly), stuff that could potentially surface during meditation.  In a way, this surfacing process is the point; it's how meditation works.  Once the gunk is cleared out we're likely to feel better, but, but, but...while the gunk is being cleared out we're likely to feel worse.  Some people need to go slower than others.  Some people need to go not at all.  And for some, it's full speed ahead.  It's a very individual thing and I think the key is to honor where we are. 

 

yes, this

 

and for some the gunk is so overwhelmingly bad that maybe its better left were it is

[Apech]

35 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

yes, this

 

and for some the gunk is so overwhelmingly bad that maybe its better left were it is

 

I wonder about that.  Maybe at a certain time or stage this is true in a practical sense but ultimately will it not be uncovered.

 

 

[blue eyed snake]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I wonder about that.  Maybe at a certain time or stage this is true in a practical sense but ultimately will it not be uncovered.

 

 

 

mmm

as i 'believe' in reincarnation i guess it'll cling to you to be transformed in the next life.

 

but, say, you've been doing meditation and what not for a large part of your life and you keep uncovering shit ain't you? There are always new, deeper layers that need dissolving.

 

 

Now visualize a classmate from your childhood, he's never done anything in that department. He's a friendly guy, married, raised some kids, is now a granddad and likes to have his grandkids around. Retired and pottering around in his garden,.

 

Now all of a sudden he's ill and also a lot of emotional shit comes out

 

what use is it to get him through dissolving et cetera?

will it improve his quality of life?

 

I guess I would just be very nice to him and soothe him in his emotional outbursts, just agreeing that it is all hard and he's welcome to cry on my shoulder.

thereby giving him a way to vent the top layer of emotional shit and regain his emotional stability.

 

Or the person that was abused in his childhood and has cobbled together a reasonable life with the help of psychofarmaca, (s)he may well drown in the onslaught of memories and painful physical symptoms that will arise.

Will it improve the quality of life?

 

also...we can talk about it here but there's scant help to be had when things go awry and we drown in the shit we uprooted.

 

---

 

imho to dissolve those emotions we have to be ready to really feel them. fear, rightful wrath, deep sadness.

there was a day those emotions arose and we were not able to go through them and they clogged up our system, to unclog we have to feel it afresh, without holding back- that feels like scary business.

 

[Maddie]

4 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It's not as straightforward as clinging to the events, an automatic reaction has been formed. Therapeutic treatment does include going back to the events but the automatic reaction acts in a sense autonomously.

 

Clinging is an automatic reaction.

[snowymountains]

37 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Clinging is an automatic reaction.

 

It's not defined as such in Buddhism. What is it then that babies and toddlers develop towards their parents..., this is clinging ( and its not an automatic reaction )

 

When definition of clinging is expanding, adjectives are added to it to fit the original model it's pointing towards the Buddha's model not being complete. 

 

Btw we always have automatic reactions, it's only a question of whether these are "calibrated" to the right time period. They're not clinging nor can all our automatic reactions be discovered through insight meditation.

 

The Buddha's teachings are wonderful and deep, but we also have to take into account what's been discovered since then.

He too would take account of this knowledge if he were alive today, he wouldn't use knowledge of 400BC.

 

 

[Maddie]

7 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's not defined as such in Buddhism. What is it then that babies and toddlers develop towards their parents..., this is clinging ( and its not an automatic reaction )

 

When definition of clinging is expanding, adjectives are added to it to fit the original model it's pointing towards the Buddha's model not being complete. 

 

Btw we always have automatic reactions, it's only a question of whether these are "calibrated" to the right time period. They're not clinging nor can all our automatic reactions be discovered through insight meditation.

 

The Buddha's teachings are wonderful and deep, but we also have to take into account what's been discovered since then.

He too would take account of this knowledge if he were alive today, he wouldn't use knowledge of 400BC.

 

 

 

I guess we interpret our reading of the pali canon a bit differently 😌

 

I suppose if this conversation had happened a couple hundred years after the Buddha's death two new schools of Buddhism would have just formed LOL 🤭

Edited February 9 by Maddie

[snowymountains]

11 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I guess we interpret our reading of the pali canon a bit differently 😌

 

I suppose if this conversation had happened a couple hundred years after the Buddhist death two new schools of Buddhism would have just formed LOL 🤭

 

It's not interpretation of the Pali, it isn't covered in the lines you quoted. Buddha's view was not complete. What he said isn't wrong, it's just not complete.

The abhidhamma does try to include this though, if I recall correctly ( again authorship of the abhidhamma is contested ).

 

But to see it historically, Schopenhauer read the Buddha, in turn Freud read lots of Schopenhauer, which affected his thinking a lot. This on its own is proof that the Buddha's teachings are very deep, he's a spiritual ancestor of the founder of psychoanalysis in that sense.

 

This doesn't mean though that his teachings give as complete a picture as what we have today, a lot has been discovered since Freud's times and even more so since the Buddha's times.

Like any piece of knowledge it's also evolving, in 10 years we'll know more than what we know today.

Edited February 9 by snowymountains